alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch  Preferred  Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
John C. Stomber, Regular  Trustee of the Trust and Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:   John C. Stomber *
                              Title:  Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:   John C. Stomber *
                               Title:  Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Dated: November 7, 2002
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Robert Hardie Tibaut Bowman and Powers L. Bowman v. Molly

Bowman Stephens

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00522

- CV

Trial court case number: D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 000636

Trial court: 261st District Court of Travis County

Appellee filed a response to appellant’s motion for emergency relief.

The Court requests appellant to file a reply to appellee’s response by noon, Thursday,

August 10, 2017.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signatur e: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 7, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                          15,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  661,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,062
<INVENTORY>                                  1,107,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,857,368
<PP&E>                                       5,718,934
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,238,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,429,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,918,911
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,151,751
<OTHER-SE>                                   (592,369)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,429,956
<SALES>                                      4,729,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,730,691
<CGS>                                        3,433,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,433,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,033,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             149,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                113,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            113,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,709
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8629)

Entry No. 771086.

#### Leonard Brauner *v.*United States

(Decided August 8, 1956)

*Priest & Carson (Joseph Clunan*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain toy clarinets that were exported from Germany and entered at the port of New York. The merchandise was entered at $1.65 *489(U. S.) per dozen, plus 4 per centum, and it was appraised at 22.60 deutschemarks per dozen, less 60 per centum, plus export cases. Plaintiff claims that $1.65 (U. S.) per dozen, the alleged purchase price, is the proper value of the merchandise.

The importer’s (plaintiff’s) undisputed testimony, coupled with stipulated facts and documentary evidence, establishes that, at the time of exportation of the merchandise in question, the foreign manufacturer and exporter of the toy clarinets in question sold such merchandise in wholesale quantities at the list price, less discounts that varied according to quantities purchased, and that the importer of the shipment involved herein was allowed a special discount of 70 per centum as a consideration for “your large order of 3,000 dz. of this 6 key clarinet” (plaintiff’s collective exhibit 4). Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s purchase price (his claimed value) for the toy clarinets in question cannot be accepted as the proper value for appraisement of the merchandise. *United States*v. *Mexican Products Co.,*28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 80, C. A. D. 129, and cases therein cited.

Since there is nothing before me to disturb the value found by the appraiser, which carries a statutory presumption of correctness (28 U. S. C. § 2633), I, therefore, find that the proper value for the toy clarinets in question is the appraised .value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 55210.

#### Walter T. Ueland et al. *v.*United States,

protests 507203-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SALVADOR

AGUILAR

VENC ES and M ARIA ESTHER

AGUILAR

LAR A, Pe titione rs, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73926 Age n c y Nos. A079-537-361

A070-950-121 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Sa lva dor Aguila

r Ve n c e s and M aria

Esthe r Aguila

r Lara , nat ive s and c itiz e ns of M e xic o , pe t ition for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing the ir m otion to re ope n a lle ging ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n . Iturribarria v. IN S, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th C ir. 2003). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing pe titione rs’ m otion to re ope n whe re the y

fa ile d to e sta

blish pre judic e from

the a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e . Se eid. at 901-03; Ortiz v . IN S, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 1999) (no pre j udic e whe re pe titione rs fa ile d to de sc ribe the e v ide nc e tha t c ounse l inc o m pe te ntly fa ile d to introduc e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 9 2 6 2
No. 46086.

#### Protest 38613-K of Intercontinental Meat Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ECEM EUROPEAN CHEMICAL :

MARKETING B.V., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 05-3078

 :

v. :

:

THE PUROLITE COMPANY, :

:

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29 day of January 2010, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion in th

Limine to Exclude Evidence of Settlement Negotiations (Doc. No. 59), Plaintiff’s Response in

Opposition to the Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 70), Defendant’s Supplemental Brief in Support of

the Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 80), and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition (Doc. No.

82), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion dated January 29, 2010, it is ORDERED that

Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 59) is GRANTED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J. 

 JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 32

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 55 Att. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 21 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 22 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 23 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 24 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 25 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 26 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 27 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 28 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 29 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 30 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-6 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 32 of 32
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 300
          - [TD 9982]
          - RIN 1545-BQ26

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Final regulations; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to Treasury Decision 9982, which was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         for Friday, October 20, 2023. Treasury Decision 9982 issued final regulations amending existing regulations relating to user fees for enrolled actuaries.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective on November 21, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn M. Lee at (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The final regulations (TD 9982) that are the subject of this correction are under 26 CFR part 300—User Fees.

## Corrections to Publication

Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9982) that are the subject of FR Doc 2023-23301, published on October 20, 2023, are corrected on page 72370, in the first column, in the second line under the heading “List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300” by removing “Use fees” and adding “User fees” in its place.

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,

Section Chief, Publications & Regulations Section, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2023-25438 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00210-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.Y., A CHILD

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-4225-3

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

On September 20, 2021, David Young’s retained counsel, Brett Pritchard, filed a 

motion to withdraw. On September 22, 2021, this Court granted the motion to withdraw

and instructed Young to notify this Court within 14 days that he has obtained new 

counsel. This Court has not received any correspondence indicating that Young has

retained new counsel.

On September 22, 2021, we also informed Young that the reporter’s record has not 

been filed because Young has not made arrangements to pay for the record. We instructed 

Young to make arrangements to pay for the record within 14 days or the appeal would 
In the Interest of B.Y. Page 2

be submitted on the clerk’s record alone. Young has not made arrangements to pay for 

the reporter’s record.

We abate this appeal to the trial court to hold a hearing within 21 days from the 

date of this Order to determine: (1) whether Young desires to continue his appeal of the 

termination of his parental rights; and (2) whether Young is entitled to receive a courtappointed attorney, and if so, to appoint new counsel on appeal. The supplemental 

clerk’s and reporter’s records, if any, are ordered to be filed within 30 days of the date of 

this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed October 13, 2021

[RWR]
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

6. septembra 2006

(2006/C 215/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----

----

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Prípad č. COMP/M.4374 — CVRD/Inco)

Prípad, ktorý môže byť posúdený v zjednodušenom konaní

(2006/C 215/02)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004 s. 1.

(2)Ú. v. EÚ C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32.

----

----

Oznámenie týkajúce sa zavedenia administratívnej spolupráce medzi Keňou a Európskym spoločenstvom

(Uverejnené podľa článku 7 ods. 8 nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1148/2001 (Ú. v. ES L 156, 13.6.2001, s. 9))

(2006/C 215/03)

Komisia týmto vyhlasuje, že Keňa zaslala všetky relevantné informácie o kontrolných úkonoch (tlačivá používané na osvedčenia o zhode, odtlačky pečiatok, mená a podpisy schválených inšpektorov) na základe administratívnej spolupráce, ktorá je ustanovená v článku 7 ods. 8 nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1148/2001, naposledy zmeneného a doplneného nariadením (ES) č. 408/2003, a zavedená medzi Keňou a Európskym spoločenstvom. Komisia tieto informácie 12. júna 2006 ďalej odovzdala koordinačným orgánom členských štátov.

Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 431/2006 sa preto uplatňuje odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.

----

----

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Prípad č. COMP/M.4332 — MEAS/DSPL/SADOPORT)

Prípad, ktorý môže byť posúdený v zjednodušenom konaní

(2006/C 215/04)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)Ú. v. EÚ C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32.

----
<PAGE>

                                                      EXHIBIT 10.3

24 May 2002

John Storey
93 Dacre Park
Blackheath
London SE13 5BX

Dear John

REMUNERATION ADJUSTMENTS

Further to our conversation, I am pleased to confirm the following changes to
your remuneration package with Omega (UK) Limited.

With effect from 1 March 2002 your annual salary will increase by 15%. The
pension contribution made by the company to your pension scheme will likewise
be increased by 15%.

The new salary and pension contributions will be used in connection with any
calculation resulting from a trigger of the change of control clause in your
contract.

In addition, you will be awarded an amount of pound 30,000 on the successful
conclusion of any transaction which results in the sale of Omega Worldwide.
This amount will be excluded from any calculation in regard to the change of
control provisions contained in your contract and will be payable within five
days of closing such a transaction.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

I would be grateful if you could confirm your agreement to these amendments by
signing, dating and returning the enclosed copy of this letter to me in due
course.

Yours sincerely


/s/ Ronald S. Elder
-----------------------
Ronald S Elder
Chief Executive


Signed: /s/ John Storey                    Date: 24th May 2002
        ------------------                       ----------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHRYN FINKEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :

 SECURITY : NO. 05-5058

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2007, upon

consideration of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment

(docket entries 7 & 8) as well as the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (docket entry # 11), and

the Court noting that no objections were filed by the March 20,

2007 deadline, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED; and

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this matter

statistically. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:05-cv-05058-SD Document 13 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHRYN FINKEY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

 v. :

:

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :

 SECURITY : NO. 05-5058

JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2007, the Court having

today granted defendant's motions for summary judgment, JUDGMENT

IS ENTERED in favor of defendant Commissioner of Social Security

and against plaintiff Kathryn Finkey.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:05-cv-05058-SD Document 13 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR ALFONSO MARTINEZ-SALAS, 

AKA Victor Alfonso Martinez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73746 

Agency No. A205-714-127 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Victor Alfonso Martinez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro 

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73746 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MartinezSalas failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See 

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme 

concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as 

offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also DuranRodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel 

the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence 

also supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-Salas failed to establish a 

clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 

1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively 

reasonable). 

We do not reach Martinez-Salas’s contentions as to the cognizability of his 

proposed particular social group. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 

(9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by 

the BIA).

Thus, Martinez-Salas’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 
3 15-73746 

Martinez-Salas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.